[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe --

> Hi Ham and all,
>
> In my opinion "essence" is a bogus word.  It combines two parts
> of speech, to be (esse) and being (ens) in one conception thereby
> becoming twisted and outside reality.  Metaphysically two are not one.
> Whenever I see the word "essence" I translate it to "existence"
> dq/sq and I feel more secure in logic.  DQ/SQ existence and DQ/SQ
> value in DQ/SQ evolution.
>
> A logic of evolution accepts DQ/SQ existence.

With due respect, Joe, I see little difference between what you call a 
"bogus
word" and an attributive noun whose common definition has been corrupted
to signify "moral goodness".

You are quite right that "essence" combines the predicate "to be" with "what
is", and that suits my ontology perfectly, for ultimate reality is the 
Absolute Being that transcends both finitude and difference.  In addition to 
expressing the fundamental nature of Reality, Essence also denotes 
"essential" in the sense of a necessary source (or cause) of existence. 
This seems "twisted" to you because your "DQ/SQ reality" is restricted to 
relational existence which Pirsig would call SOM,

> Value attaches to a hierarchy in existing reality.  In the metaphysical
> description of evolution DQ/SQ, value must exist in the hierarchy in
> existence.  Evolution describes the value in existence, reality.
> Definition follows value in evolution.  DQ is a proper value in
> metaphysics.  I question how definition is proper to the conception
> of evolution which creates value for levels in existence.

You see, Joe, this analysis seems twisted to me.  Why must Value attach to a 
hierarchy?  Value cannot exist without subjective awareness.  Unperceived 
(i.e. unappreciated) value is an oxymoron, and all value is relative to the 
observer.  This is why existence is experienced as a pluralistic system in 
which the individual converts sensible value into a diversity of objects, 
the value of each being relative within the range of conscious sensibility.

The word "quality", on the other hand, suggests no such ontology.  It 
connotes only a "grade" or degree of excellence generated by some factor of 
DQ/SQ that is intrinsic to the universe.  If you are persuaded that 
Evolution is moral, you will tend to believe that the universe is the source 
of goodness, thus eliminating the need for an essential Source.  This is 
faulty reasoning in my opinion.

Neither the universe nor its evolution "describes value".  Only humans do 
that,.in the same way that they define a hierarchy of levels.  The MOQ does 
not take this into account at all.  It would have us believe that 
individuals and their conceptions are only "patterns" generated by an 
evolving cosmic Quality which can't be defined, that life has no meaning 
apart from moving with the flow of evolution to its predestined 
"betterness".

Sorry, Joe, but that ontology is not acceptable to me.

Essentially speaking,
Ham


> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html